From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 12:15:26 MDT
Martin Ling wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:04:36AM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > > and I hesitate to call _anyone_ to carries an M-16 a "dissident".
> >
> > did SAS kill dissidents? ... check
>
> Please note the distinction between peaceful dissidents and armed terrorists.
When the government has the authority to restrict your ability to practice peaceful protest and demonstration, and uses it, why do
you wonder that the result is armed insurrection? You leave them no choice. When you've got no other options, and nothing left to
lose, violence IS a viable option. If you are a member of the population that supports a government that opresses people this way,
you deserve to become a target. Violent rebellion is a very direct indicator of how free segments of the population are. Those that
refuse to acknowledge and understand this deserve their fate.
> > Is there an Official Secrets Act? ... check (and how is the FOI Act any
> > different? New name the same dog?)
>
> And the US, of course, keeps no official secrets?
How many newspapers have given a ratts behind, or can legally be forced by the government, to not print something just because the
government doesn't want it to? The Official Secrets Act gives the PM the authority to censor any paper on national security
grounds, perfectly legally, and prosecute anyone who doesn't obey. That can't happen here.
> Wasn't it you who criticised me once before, suggesting I thought I knew
> the whole story about everything that goes on?
The way the government handles things here is through propaganda, manipulation, and disinformation. While the question of whether
this is better than overt government orders is obviously a good question to debate.
> > You say the income tax is lower? What are the brackets, the percentages? What are the deductions? What is the cost of living?
> > Value added tax? ... check
>
> Since when exactly was the level of taxation directly inversely
> proportional to how 'free' a country is? Unless one is arguing for a
> system of no taxation and public services at all, the specifics seem
> somewhat irrelevant.
How much of your property the government feels it is free to confiscate does reflect on how free that country is. If you work half
the year as a slave to the government, you are hardly free.
> Would you cut all taxation? Make all public services optional private ones?
Sure, why not?
> Including policing? (threads merge...)
Yes, but not privatize as a distinct authority to a corporation, but a distributed, decentralized policing done by the citizens
themselves.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:45 MST